11/01/2017 Newsnight


A look at Donald Trump's response to allegations that Russia posseses compromising material on him. Also reporting on conflicting views on the state of the NHS.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 11/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



That something Nazi Germany would have done and did do. I think it's a


disgrace that information that was false and fake and never happened


got released to the public. That's right, you heard


America's President-elect compare He thinks intelligence


agencies spread salacious No, I'm not going to


give you a question. Fter an electrifying


hour-long press conference, what more have we learned of Trump,


the truth, and his relations We've all seen humanitarian crises


around the world. To use that description of a national Health


Service was irresponsible and overblown.


The government tries to paper over growing concern about the NHS.


Like, I've already made the decision I want to be a girl.


But I haven't made the decision if I want to do the surgeries.


Is it right that primary school age children should be permitted gender


Donald Trump has suggested that US intelligence agencies may be behind


claims that Russia has gathered compromising information on him,


and rubbished the news agencies that chose to publish the salacious


sexual allegations about him from leaked and unverified documents.


Speaking at his first press conference since July,


the President-elect reminded reporters just how different


In an explosive and combative exchange, Trump attacked


both CNN and Buzzfeed - which he described as


And he compared the actions of the CIA - who had shared


the intelligence with him - to Nazi Germany.


The documents appear to claim Russia had secretly filmed him,


Donald Trump - and his surrogates - spelled out why none of the facts


Our Diplomatic Editor, Mark Urban, has pieced together


With his first press Conference in six months, Donald Trump was bound


to have been under close scrutiny. So last night's allegations couldn't


have been better timed, and indeed does make indeed the leaks finally


pushed into publicly blaming Russia for hacking rivals. As far as


hacking, I think it was Russia. But I think we also get hacked by other


countries and other people. And I can say that when we lost 22 million


names and everything else that was hacked recently, they didn't make a


big deal out of that. That was something that was extraordinary,


that was probably China. We have much hacking going on. But if that


seemed to put the President-elect on the same page as his intelligence


chiefs, think again. That nonsense that was released by the maybe the


intelligence agencies, who knows? May be the intelligence agencies,


which would be a tremendous blot on their record, if they in fact did


that. A tremendous plot. Because a thing like that should have never


been written. It should never have been had and it should never have


been released. The allegations published last night have been known


to some reporters for months. But it was the fact that intelligence


agencies decided to brief Trump on these claims and votes for the


credibility of their author, a former MI6 officer, that gave them


traction. These were based on memos compiled by a former British


intelligence operative, whose past work US intelligence officials


consider credible. When that had aired, the reports ended up online.


The documents, marked confidential and sensitive source, argue the


Russian government had been backing Trump for at least five years. One


makes salacious claims about his alleged use of prostitutes, and that


the FSB had either arranged or moderate them. The latest memo


details a meeting in Moscow between Carter Page and senior Russian


officials. One source suggests the Russians have compromising material


on both Trump and Hillary Clinton. A Kremlin spokesman is alleged to have


led the campaign to help Trump and damage his opponent. He today issued


his own denial. There were also alleged meetings between Trump


lawyer Michael Cohen and Kremlin officials. One suggests he met


Kremlin officials in 2016. Michael Cohen says he has never been to


Moscow. CNN reported may have been a different Michael Cohen. The memos


claim deniable payments were made to hackers who had worked for the


Kremlin and against Clinton's campaign. The fact that Buzzfeed and


CNN made the decision to run with this unsubstantiated claim is a sad


and pathetic attempt to get press. The report is not an intelligence


report, plain and simple. People need to look very carefully at a


range of information in front of them. And, go to their own


conclusions as they sift through a variety of different facts. -- and


come to the wrong conclusions. I will say that I listened to him very


closely and listened to be denied and what he did not. And the point


about the number of different contacts that people in his campaign


had with the Russians, which he was asked about repeatedly, he did not


comment on that point. Today's confirmation hearings for Trump's


Pickford Secretary of State spent much time on Russia and Putin. I


have not had any class -- on classified briefings because I have


not received my clearance. I did read the report released on January


six. That report is clearly trouble. It indicates all of the actions you


describe are undertaken. The tycoon's Kremlin ties are the chosen


battle ground. This was a press


conference like no other. The bulk of it was spent


on dispelling what Donald Trump But in between, we got


plenty of real news. The Mexican wall will be built


with almost immediate effect, Obamacare would be replaced


with a new healthcare system, a border tax would be enacted


on those companies who move production abroad,


and the President-elect would be isolating himself


from all his business interests and handing the company


over to his sons to run. As a press conference,


this was unwieldy, confused and exhausting, but as a piece


of television, it The man who in just


ten days will be sworn in as the leader of the free world


began by dismissing the lurid allegations of sexual behaviour


in a Russian hotel room and commended those who chose not


to report them. I want to thank a lot of the news


organisations here today. Trump pulled back


to questions of his If Putin likes Donald


Trump - guess what, folks - that's called


an asset, not a liability. Trump then explains why


those extraordinary I was in Russia years


ago with the Miss Universe contest,


which did very well. And I told many people,


be careful, because you don't want to see


yourself on television. Trump lashes out at both


the US intelligence highly personal fight with the news


organisations who did choose to Since you are attacking


us, can you give us a She's asking a question,


don't be rude. No, I'm not going to


give you a question. I think it was disgraceful,


disgraceful, that the intelligence agencies


allowed any information that turned out to be


so I think it's a disgrace,


and I say that, and I say And that's something Nazi Germany


would have done, and did do.


I think it's a disgrace. As far as Buzzfeed,


which is a failing pile of garbage, writing it,


I think they're going to suffer the He picks up parts of the story


he claims are demonstrably false. Michael Cohen of the Trump


organisation was in Prague. It turned out to be


a different Michael Cohen. It may well be that


none of the leaks are true, but the story in some ways


has already moved on. A man about to enter


the highest office in the land who distrusts


the very agencies tasked


with keeping America safe. No note to end on, so he falls


back on a role he does These papers are all just


a piece of the many, many companies that


are being put into trust


to be run by my two sons. I hope that the end of eight years


I'll come back and I'll Otherwise, if they do a bad job,


I'll say, you're fired. Well, within the last hour,


the BBC has named Christopher Steele as the author of the series of memos


regarding Donald Trump which has He is a former member


of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, and has been a director


of Orbis, which describes itself as a leading corporate


intelligence company. He has not yet responded


to a request for comment. Glen Greenwald - best known


for his role in the publication of the National Security Agnecy


leaks - joins us now from Rio. You heard Buzzfeed, the publication


that went ahead with publication today, being described as a failing


pile of garbage. Would you have published? I think the question


about whether to publish was a very easy one before yesterday, which was


the decision that every news organisation that had this document


made, which was not to publish, because nobody could verify this


information. Once the intelligence agencies called CNN to tell the


world that the FBI and CIA had briefed the President-elect on this


material, and that Russia allegedly had dirt on Trump, I actually think


Buzzfeed did an important journalistic service by ending the


speculation about what that was and letting everybody see what a


farcical document this actually was on which this is based. You call it


a farcical document, Donald Trump called it fake news. You basically


with him on that? I don't know if it is fake or real. I say it is


farcical because when it was disclosed it was not only anonymous,


now a person has been identified, it was somebody paid by Democratic


operatives to pick up dirt on Hillary Clinton. There is no


evidence. It is all based on what anonymous people allegedly told him.


It is impossible to evaluate whether or might not these claims are true,


which is why no journalist or organisation was willing to publish


despite efforts to get them to do so. It was taken seriously by the


CIA, doesn't that elevated above gossip? Right, so the CIA is an


agency that has repeatedly got caught lying in the past. It is


designed to disseminate propaganda and they are currently in open


warfare with the person elected president of the United States.


There were behind the Hillary Clinton campaign. Once the CIA


briefs the president and President-elect on this document, it


becomes newsworthy. But the mere fact the CIA tried to enshrine this


document in a cloud of authenticity or credibility, doesn't for me as a


journalist convince me. I want to see evidence first to believe


claims. You are calling the CIA partisan. You basically suggesting a


Donald Trump ignores everything the CAA tells him, that is no great loss


to America? No, I didn't say anything even a multi-like that. You


suggested the CAA was partisan and pitted against the President-elect?


That is absolutely true. The former head of the CIA, Michael Morrell,


went to the New York Times and endorsed Hillary Clinton. General


Hayden went to the Washington Post and did the same. They both accused


Trump of being a recruit of Vladimir Putin. Whatever they tell him now,


in that case, he would have to take with a pinch of salt because he


would see them as a partisan organisation? Is that what you are


suggesting? I would say that any rational human being with minimal


history of the United States and the CIA would take everything that the


CAA says with a huge grain of salt. I would call it a dose of rational


scepticism, given how many times in the past that agency has lied and


been in error. The Iraq war was started because that agency said


that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was in alliance


with Al-Qaeda. Something that was tragically untrue. So of course


people would treat those claims sceptically. But intelligence is not


the same as fact. It's Omeley comes to you with a terrorist threat, it


is what they understand might be about to happen. If they came to you


with fact, it would be too late. That is what the CIA is doing, isn't


it? For the CIA calls to be public is


not pack can anybody's mind not even the CIA say it is fact. As own


report demonstrated, one of the only claims that could be verified, that


Trump's lawyer travel to Prague to meet with Russian officials, came


pretty close to being affirmatively disproven, given that Michael: Was


not in Prague. It is not a fact. It is a falsehood, as the CIA so often


disseminates. But it may not always come down to fight with


intelligence. Are not right to try to alert the incoming president that


this may be going on? Surely that is an intelligence agency doing its


job, isn't it? I don't think anybody has a problem with the fact the CIA


told Donald Trump this happened. I think the problem is they called the


source credible, then somebody went to CNN in a coordinated way,


multiple officials, to tell CNN that this was briefed to the president


and the President-elect, knowing they would report it and the


document would surface. You can take the line that the CIA was trying to


do its job, but it is obvious there is open conflict between the


intelligence community and the elected president and this was a way


of undermining his credibility. We don't know where those leaks came


from, although he has pointed the finger at the intelligence agencies.


Let me ask you to clarify one thing, because it seemed as if the first


time today we had Donald Trump concede that the hacking of the


Democratic e-mails over the probably did come from Russia. Would that


change how you view Wikileaks and awayday leaked -- and the way they


leaked? I don't regard Donald Trump as a paragon of truth that we are


duty bound to agree with. I want to see evidence before I believe Russia


did it. Second, every media organisation, when they get


material, ask two questions: Is it authentic, and is it in the public


interest? It does not matter what the provenance of the documents was


from a journalistic perspective, it depends on whether they were in the


public interest, and they clearly were. It resulted in five Democratic


officials being removed. Wikileaks did the right thing in reporting on


those materials. Labour has accused the Prime


Minister of being in denial over In the Commons today,


Jeremy Corbyn pointed to the increasing number of patients


waiting more than four hours in A, and the number of hospitals now


overstretched, and called for extra investment in health


and social care, calling it a humanitarian crisis -


the phrase first used Theresa May rejected the phrase,


but admitted the pressure exists. It is winter, the NHS's hardest time


of the year, and while it is not actually snowing in Westminster, it


feels positively arctic in the English health service. Today, its


chief executive, who already has a pretty frosty relationship with


Downing Street, kicked off a fairly public campaign for more NHS


funding. The Government is repeatedly telling us, and I have


had letters recently from the Secretary of State, that the NHS is


getting more money than it asks for, so what is your view? I have said it


previously to a select committee in October that, like probably every


part of the public servers, we got less than we ask for in that


process, and so I think it would be stretching it to say that the NHS


has got more than it has asked for. So how bad are things? Is it just


January? No, it isn't. Here are the 2014 figures for the share of


patients at A dealt with within four hours. You can see how cold


weather ways on the service. It is well below its 95% target at the end


of the year. He was 2015 and 2016. Now, let's look at the July. You can


see that, yes, winter matters, but performance has declined each year,


and each year, there was matching deterioration in the financial


position of the hospitals. The hospital sector is struggling on all


fronts. Hospitals started the financial year with an underlying


deficit of almost ?4 billion, which meant they were spending ?4 billion


more than their funding. In the summer, the Government introduced a


so-called reset, of measures to address this, including targets for


hospitals to gradually reduce those deficits, and some extra money over


the next three years, though that has to be taken from elsewhere in


the NHS. There is also a restriction on hospitals hiring locum staff. As


part of the reset, hospitals were supposed to increase performance.


Here is the average of the plans set out, starting from July. You can see


they were supposed to gradually moved back to that elusive 95%


target, but here is what happened. The hospitals started off behind and


fell further back. The BBC has obtained leaked data suggesting


recent performances in this region of the graph down here. The reset


utterly failed. Some of the causes of this winter's problems in health


care are very long. Full example -- for example, the country's ageing


and every year technology means that we can treat new diseases, which


means there is rising demand for health care every year. It is a type


that comes in and never goes out. But some of the problems have more


medium-term causes. For example, what's going on in social care. If


you go back to 2010, we now have 400,000 fewer people receiving


social care, so a 25% care in the number of people getting support,


which means you have large numbers of people in hospital ready to be


discharged, medically fit for discharge, but we cannot get them


into social care facilities. Act hospitals mean bad care, high costs


and long waiting times, which is why Simon Stephens supports more money


for local authority social care. The hospitals themselves have another


problem: They have taken up particularly big part of the NHS's


funding string. They wanted to drive more productivity in hospitals by


reducing the amount the given per patient. This meant that by 2015,


the hospital was paid the equivalent of ?850 to treat a patient they


would have been paid ?1000 to treat five years earlier. The hospitals


aren't coping on those lower prices. It's really not just another winter.


Hospital bosses now talk about the new law of longer waiting times and


was hospital performance. Does the NHS need


comprehensive reform? I'm joined in the studio now by


former Health Minister, Dan Poulter. By the former President


of the Royal College And by Ali Parsa, who is the founder


of the Digital Healthcare There was this dismissal of it being


a crisis, or at least not on the scale the British Red Cross


suggested. When the Prime Minister talked at PMQs about beans -- the


small number of incidents, there was a collective groan at someone who


had clearly underestimated the problem so badly, ban. When we think


of a humanitarian crisis, she rightly said, we think of Syria and


Iraq, but it is the case that there is a big problem in the NHS, and we


have seen tragic examples in Worcester and elsewhere this week,


where people's lives have been lost because of the pressures on A You


are clear, there is a big problem in the NHS, not a small number of


incidents will stop -- a small number of incidents. It is worse


than I have seen things in the decade or so but I have been working


as a doctor. The result of pressure on front line services, we can see


that, if you like, the shop window of the NHS, A, is under pressure,


both in terms of difficulties in discharging patients, reductions in


money to local councils for social care, but I think we really need to


start a fund general practice and community care to make sure we can


prevent some of those admissions. When we talk about increases in the


budget over the last few years, almost all has gone to the acute


sector, to hospitals, many of them in debt, and a lot of that money has


sometimes been taken from mental health budgets at the expense of


primary care, and that needs to change. This talk of a humanitarian


crisis, do you think it has been unhelpful in the debate because it


makes it sound rather political? I wouldn't use the term, but I think


it is a human crisis for those elderly people waiting for hours on


trolleys, for those children with mental health problems having to


travel hundreds of miles to find a hospital bed, and for my profession,


who are trying to deliver and unable to deliver. So it is certainly a


human crisis, and I believe that what Dan has just said is absolutely


correct. It is sometimes easy to say that we need more money. We have an


incredibly cheap health service. We eke out so much care from our health


service. We have one of the most efficient services in the world. It


is a precious gift to the people of this country, and if we lose it, we


will all be more the worse off for it. Ali, do you think it comes down


to money, is it really that obvious? I don't know whether it all comes


down to money or not, but I do know that money is not the only solution.


We have to deploy better technology. One of my children got sick at the


weekend, and I had the option of taking the child to A, on a bus or


whatever, adding to the overcrowded this, spending hours and putting a


burden on doctors, or I picked up my phone, made an appointment in


seconds, so a doctor within minutes, my prescription was sent... When you


say you picked up your phone, argue talking about a private clinic? --


are you talking about a private clinic? With my private company,


Babylon, all of that went away within minutes. I pay a subscription


every month, which is a fraction of the price it costs. That is a


fraction of what we pay each year. If we push people towards this as an


alternative to A There is no doubt that investing in technology


is an important part of improving the delivery of care. It is not just


the application, it is the extra payments. I believe in a health


service free at the point of care, and free in terms of need. I think


it should be funded from general taxation. There is a sensible


discussion we need to have about whether the level of money you put


into the health service and the level of taxation should perhaps be


increased to pay for and maintain a health service we all care about. Do


you think we need more taxation? It used to be the case that national


insurance was strongly linked to health contributions. It's now a tax


that just goes to the Treasury. If we can re-establish some link


between hypothecated health and care Pack, it is something I would be


open to discussing. I think there is a good case. I am not a politician


but I agree. The public probably don't mind paying more tax if they


are sure it is going to the health service. The over 65s don't pay


national insurance. There are ways that the public can start to look at


how we can fund the health service. If you lose the service, or even the


idea of the service, it's something that you regret and you never get


back. Do you think, in a sense, that is inhibiting the NHS from trying


new, more radical ideas? Never so much iconography about the NHS, it


doesn't dare disturb itself much. In that respect, I think you're right.


We provide the same service in Rwanda. In 15 weeks since we


launched, we signed up 2.5% of the population of row under. We


delivered 70,000 consultations over the phone to the people of one of


the poorest, most economic way challenged countries in the world.


We have to be careful about this. This is not whether they should be


private or public. In Essex, we have the same arrangement with the NHS


where we do this for the National Health Service. What are some of the


other solutions you are looking at? If you see yourself as a pioneer,


it's not just about an application on your phone will stop where else


are the solutions? Ten years ago, it would have cost $1 million, ?1


million, to do diagnostics on you. Today, I can do that for ?10,000, a


99% reduction of the cost in diagnostics, and I can throw in your


gene sequencing. What is happening with technology and its effect on


health care is significant. We need to embrace it, as well as keeping


our old system. It is not one against the other.


If we were self prescribing more, is that a danger? It can be a danger.


The Pats -- has to be used in a Safeway. But certainly supporting


terrorism is important. 1.I would make is that in the NHS our systems


are just beginning to talk to each other. We need to improve the


delivery of front-line patient care. Most health care organisations spend


only a small fraction. Please don't fall into the trap of assuming that


all innovation is in the private sector and not the public sector. In


my practice, we have developed an online digital offering for patients


currently offered to 2.5 million patients across England. It will


offer people pre-care. It will tell the GP what they think is wrong with


them. We can do electronic prescribing. I think it is 2 billion


prescriptions described digitally. We self prescribe pharmacists. Let's


not look at one sector and save the NHS is a Luddite and a dinosaur. The


NHS is an innovative institution. The problem is people working in the


NHS are exhausted. To innovate, to experiment, requires energy and


Headspace. Do we have to get used to living with crisis? Demand will


always outstrip income. There will never be a time when there is a


surplus of money to spend on health, right, because of how the population


has changed? We have had an unprecedented period of a squeeze on


finances. Demand has increased. People with increasingly complex


care needs. But funding is going up by 1% a year. That is not a


sustainable long-term solution. We spend a lower amount compared to


other countries by OECD calculations. When we saw a


transformation in what we could do with the health service was when


Tony Blair put the money in and made an investment. We need a similar


investment now. You are the Tory minister talking about the need for


a Tony Blair, Gordon Brown government splurge? I care about the


health service. I care about patients. That made a difference.


With Gordon Brown, Tony Blair or Theresa May, we need to make a


difference. If that isn't done, do you have to look at the services


that can no longer be offered? . I think you're right. We need to send


some of the practices we have into general practice. If we re-source


them better, we will keep patients out of hospital and we will


hopefully be able to write this crisis. Fundamentally we get what we


pay for if we don't put more money in. We can't pay for anything. Thank


you. Around the world there has been


a significant increase in the number of children being referred


to gender clinics. Increasingly, parents with children


who say they've been born in the wrong gender,


are adopting a gender affirmative approach


and supporting their children Tomorrow night, a documentary airs


on BBC Two which looks at the choices children


and their parents Around the world, the transgender


community is on the march. Not all boys have a penis,


and not all girls have a vagina. Parents are facing


an explosion in the number of children saying they were


born in the wrong body. I never actually fitted


in with being a boy. I don't like the games,


the hairstyles, the clothes. And I always thought


from the beginning There's nothing wrong


with being a boy. It's just that I don't


enjoy being a boy. She's just at an age now


where sexuality is starting to develop, so boy crushes and things


like that are just starting to come I'm pretty sure I'm going to have


to get surgeries and all that It might be rough, cos


everybody has a rough life. At this point, we have


to start considering puberty blockers, things like that, so we've


been researching that like crazy and speaking to doctors and different


things to try to make those decisions for her because she's


too young to make them. Like, I've already made


the decision I want to be a girl, but I haven't made


the decision if I want to do the And you can see the whole


of that documentary - Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best -


tomorrow night on BBC Joining me now is Sian say, it's


transgender journalist in Bristol. At what point do you think children


are able to makes up their own minds on this? I think the whole point


about this kind of treatment or realisation is there is a lot of


nonsense in the media at the moment about transgender children and about


the kind of treatments they go through. Something like puberty


blockers, which was just discussed, Aaron fact allowing children space


and time by delaying puberty. They experience such stress out of their


gender role. It gives them the time before puberty takes over and


essentially takes a lot of decisions out of their hands that have to be


reversed painfully later. Let me bring in Ray Blanchard, who is


joining us from Toronto. Ray spent many years researching factors that


determine sexual orientation. Do you think if you can take out that


messy, oak-wood, complicated stage of childhood puberty because a small


child knows best, wouldn't you choose to do that? -- awkward. There


are some facts that have to be introduced. Every follow-up study


has shown that the majority of children with gender identity issues


do not enter up transsexual. The majority and up with normal gender


identity. Secondly, we have no diagnostic procedure and methods


that can reliably distinguish which children are going to go on a sexual


trajectory and which are going to end up with normal gender identity.


Thirdly, I think people who are not enthusiastic about it in young


children take the decision that the first line of approach Tonetti


should be helping the child accept his or her sex. If they can't do


that by puberty, it is reasonable to consider puberty blockers. I am OK


with puberty blockers. Only after a screening period. We heard about a


doctor who was fired in Canada for not being gender affirmative and


off. In other words, for asking children to pause before making that


kind of gender choice. Surely it's right for the medical profession to


try and stop that in the first instance because it's irreversible?


One thing I want to say is actually the doctor in question wasn't fired


purely because of his ideology about children and gender. He was also


fired because of a review by his peers which actually found that his


methodology was faulty. But also that his practice as a clinician


was... That is categorically untrue. He was asking very lured sexual


questions. I have to say we have to be a little bit wary... We have


heard from Ray that is categorically untrue. I don't want to go further


down those allegations because he is not here to defend himself. Let us


look at the wider question, that this is something that can't be


reversed for a child. Isn't it eminently sensible in such a young


science of clinical practitioners to Paul's? While unfortunately, the


problem is that when that pause occurs it sounds very nice and


reasonable and rational. But these are real people at the heart of it.


And unfortunately, one statistic that genuinely is true in this


country is that 48% of trans-teenagers before they hit 18,


attempt suicide. When you call for this very reasonable pause, parents


and teachers increasingly know and the majority of clinicians know...


The objective data shows gestures in gender children are the same as


those in other psychiatric populations of children and


adolescents. There is no data about the rate of completed suicides is


hiring gender this form to children than in adolescence. Isn't the


question that parents do not want to feel they are guilty of having


failed to listen to their child's concerns when they could have done


something meaningful about his? Yes, I agree. Some parents are being


emotionally blackmailed by false information about threats of suicide


by these children into thinking that if they make any attempts to help


their kid that they are putting their child at risk of suicide. It


is just pure manipulation. It is manipulation and emotionally


blackmailing? Who is manipulating? Where is this coming from? I'm


transgender myself. I work with transgender children. No one's


parents was looking for this. Most parents of transgender children have


had to go through a long process. It's not like your GP pushes it.


It's quite difficult to access health care in this country. Schools


aren't very aware of it. This idea that there is some kind of pressure,


or some trans-mob that walks into a home and says, it's time for


surgery... We have run out of time. Ray, last word to you,... Do you


think it's just because essentially this is a new science and people


have not caught up with where it transgender issues are, even those


who work within it? I think the problem is that the media coverage,


I'm not talking about the BBC, the media coverage has been so water


well mainly one-sided in terms of cheerleading for gender transition,


it has not covered other aspects of the question. -- overwhelmingly


one-sided. Thank you both.


A look at Donald Trump's response to allegations that Russia posseses compromising material on him.

Also reporting on conflicting views on the state of the NHS, when transgener children should start treatment, and Mark Carney's surprising annoucement on the effects of Brexit.

With Emily Maitlis.

Download Subtitles